The Gazette 1973

sponsibly. It was not responsible to appoint a boy of 12, and the girl of 15 should not have been appointed without inquiry as to her maturity and competence. (4) It was alleged that at the Polling Station in the Bar Room at Ballina Courthouse the personation agent of one of the candidates was allowed to carry out the duties of Presiding Officer; there was no evi- dence that these cards were obtained in any way illegally. (6) It was alleged that at Ballina N.S., someone wearing a party emblem was allowed to enter the polling station, to intercept voters and take their cards and finally to give their numbers to the Presiding Officers. There is evidence that this person did canvass voters, but that, save on three occasions when he accompanied illiterate voters, he did not enter the poll- ing station. The petitioner queried the appointment of presiding officers as well as of personation officers, and this led to unpleasantness which was to be deprecated. There was however no breach of any statutory pro- vision relating to the conduct of the election. (7) The Court is fully satisfied that, while the Count for this Constituency was going on in Swinford Town Hall, there were periods when the Deputy Returning Officer was absent, but nevertheless the ballot papers were properly guarded by the Gardai, and no one saw, touched or interfered with them. The Returning Officer should have placed all ballot papers and boxes under his own seal, and it was unwise of him to have per- mitted the agreed presence of representatives of candi- dates. (8) It was alleged that in a re-count, the inter- mediate transfers were not checked. The Deputy Returning Officer satisfied the Court that he had carried out the re-count in accordance with precedent, and that there had been a proper compliance with the regulations. It was unfortunate however that the Deputy Returning Officer had not carried out all the statutory requirements. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. [Re Election Petition for East Mayo Constituency— Dillon-Leetch v. Calleary and others—High Court (Butler and Gannon JJ)—unreported—Ballina Court- house, 4 May 1973.] Public have no right to attend local authority meetings. The following judgment was delivered by Justice Delap in January 1973. Both Defendants were charged with (i) Forcible Entry and (ii) Forcible Occupation of the Town Hall, Dun Laoghaire, on 4 September 1972. Both Defendants were members of a group calling itself The Dun Laoghaire Housing Action Group and they entered the Town Hall when a meeting of the Corporation was in progress and they interrupted the deliberations of the Councillors, distributed leaflets in the Council Chamber and refused to leave when requested to do so by the Cathaoirleach and later by Sergeant Mulqueen, Dun Laoghaire. * At the hearing, one of the Defendants contended that he entered the Town Hall in Dun Laoghaire because he felt that as a citizen of Dun Laoghaire he was entitled to attend any meeting of the Corporation and he contended that the system of obtaining admis- sion by way of invitation from a Councillor was not democratic or in order. The matter is of considerable • importance in this case because a Statutory Defence to the offence of forcible entry of land or a vehicle is provided in the Act itself which provides that a person 163

the plaintiffs to June 22, and were duly answered on July 4. One answer read that ejectment proceedings were being taken against an obstructive tenant, who had no interest in the premises. This tenant had resided on the premises as a result of a complicated mortgage suit decided years previously. When the con- tract was signed in April, all the parties knew that this difficult tenant was in possession of a house on the property. The engrossment of the deed of conveyance was sent on July 7, and the draft statutory declaration that the premises were part of the Pembroke Estate which would indemnify the purchaser against all charges in the freehold title, was only sent on July 31. In the result, time ceased to be of the essence o fthe contract. There was some dispute as to the title to the access of the property, but nevertheless on August 15, the defendants agreed to close the sale. The final statu- tory declaration was only sent on August 22, and on September 4, the plaintiffs rescinded the contract be- cause the sale had not been completed. The plaintiffs now claim a declaration that this contract has been validly rescinded, and the deposit forfeited : Yet, by not producing the essential statutory declaration in final draft until August 22, the plaintiffs could not show title in accordance with the contract. It is not possible to make time the essence of the contract, when it is not already so, by merely serving a subsequent notice to that effect. The notice given by the plaintiffs on August 11 to compel the defendants to complete the contract was completely invalid, as neither the defen- dants nor the plaintiffs had been guilty of unreasonable delay, and the plaintiffs had not shown proper title at that date. Thus the attempt to regard the contract as made on Sept. 4 was ineffective. Accordingly the plain- tiff's claim for a declaration will be dismissed with costs, and an order will be made for specific performance of the contract of 20 April 1972. The defendants will pay interest from 30 June 1972 to date of completion. [Healy Ballsbridge Ltd., v. Alliance Property Cor- poration Ltd.—Kenny J.—unreported—1 February 1973.] Election for East Mayo Constituency in February 1973 held valid. The Petitioner claims to have the election in the constituency of East Mayo held on 28 February 1973 declared void, or in the alternative, for a complete re- count of the ballot papers. He alleges that in many respects the electoral law was not complied with. There is no complaint against any candidate or his agent, or against the returning officer and his staff, or against the Gardai involved, nor that the ballot papers were tampered with. (1) The petitioner alleged that, when he was voting in Ballyhaunis N.S., there was no proper place to mark the ballot paper, and he had to mark his on a window sill. It was held that the strict rule had not been com- plied with, but that arrangements had been made for the voters to cast their votes conveniently. (2) It was alleged that at Ballina Courthouse there were too few voting compartments—3 instead of 6. Held that this did not inconvenience the poll nor detract from the secrecy of the ballot. (3) It was alleged that a boy of 12 had been appointed as a polling clerk at Callow N.S., and a girl of 15 had similarly been appointed at Culheens N.S. In this matter the Returning Officer has an unfettered discretion which should nevertheless be exercised re-